Planning commission approves variance, recommends rezone and preliminary plat for 1907 West Jefferson
October 13, 2025 | Boise City, Boise, Ada County, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission on Oct. 15, 2025 approved a variance and recommended City Council approval of a rezone and preliminary plat for a planned 1.96‑acre mixed‑use subdivision at 1907 West Jefferson that would create 21 townhome lots, one small commercial lot and two common lots.
The commission voted unanimously to approve the variance (CVA‑25‑34) to allow encroachment into the MX‑1 rear setback. Commissioners then voted, also unanimously, to recommend approval of the rezone (CAR‑25‑17) from R‑2/R‑3 to MX‑1 and the preliminary plat (SUB‑25‑50). Commissioner Seha moved to recommend the rezone and preliminary plat; Commissioner Moore seconded the rezone motion. For the preliminary plat the commission added a recommended condition that “living space” not exceed 35 feet; commissioners approved that recommendation by roll call. The variance vote was moved by Commissioner Doan and seconded by Commissioner Seha. The roll calls recorded the ayes as Stanley, Moore, Seha, Torres and Doan; the motions carried unanimously.
Why it matters: Planning staff said the site sits between two arterial streets, near multiple bus routes, bikeways and three activity centers, and that the comprehensive plan supports infill on vacant parcels to use existing infrastructure. The proposed MX‑1 zoning would allow the mixed‑use subdivision and a maximum structure height up to the MX‑1 limit (45 feet by code), but the applicant offered a design with buildings primarily 2–3 stories and a parapet at about 35 feet. The commission’s recommended condition limits internal living space height to 35 feet; rooftop stair/lift overruns and rooftop amenities were discussed separately in the hearing.
Staff presentation and planning findings: Jesse, representing planning staff, summarized the application as CAR‑25‑17 / CBA‑25‑34 / SUB‑25‑50, a request to rezone roughly 1.96 acres (including rights of way) from R‑2 and R‑3 to MX‑1, submit a preliminary plat for 21 residential, one commercial and two common lots, and grant a variance to reduce the MX‑1 10‑foot rear setback to permit consolidated vehicle access from an internal common lot. Jesse said the MX‑1 designation is supported by the future land use map given the parcel’s proximity to services and transit, that the MX‑1 zone requires either mixed uses or a minimum two‑story form, and that all parking requirements would be met as proposed. Jesse concluded: “The planning team recommends approval.”
Applicant presentation: Ben Semple, representing Rodney Evans and Partners (the applicant), said the team agreed with the staff report and conditions of approval. Semple described the project as 2‑ to 3‑story townhomes with 1–2 car garages, an internal bicycle storage structure and consolidated trash/dumpster service on the common lot. He said the project retains most street trees, adds internal landscaping and proposes a small neighborhood‑scaled commercial “bodega” at the northeast corner. “We are in agreement with all the conditions of approval and the staff report,” Semple said during his presentation.
Variance and access rationale: Both staff and the applicant said the triangular parcel geometry and the desire to consolidate vehicle access onto an internal common lot — rather than require 22 separate alley accesses and maintenance agreements — justified the variance request. Semple said the layout reduces curb cuts and places vehicle access from the alley/internal lot. Staff noted that the variance would change internal rear setback relationships in the MX‑1 layout but would not alter the street‑facing setbacks required by the public right of way.
Public testimony and neighborhood concerns: More than twenty people spoke during the public comment period. Speakers supporting the project said the lot has been vacant for years and that infill housing is appropriate. Scott Tagg, a nearby resident, said he supported the project: “I support this project because I look forward to welcoming these new residents to my neighborhood.”
Most speakers opposed elements of the proposal. Frequent concerns included height, privacy, parking demand, traffic safety on the narrow Jefferson Street corridor, the proposed MX‑1 rezoning (which removes some of the existing R‑2/R‑3 setback protections), and the viability or need for the proposed corner commercial space. Representative public comments included: “The rules are valid. The rules are something we all live by,” said Sarah Colson, a nearby resident questioning the request for exceptions; Trish Webb, who lives at 1912 West Jefferson, told the commission she and her wife had lived in the neighborhood for 30 years and said, “My biggest concern is the heights of the building.” Neighbors also raised construction impacts, stormwater and infrastructure capacity.
Site, design and mitigation details: The project site totals about 1.96 acres. The applicant’s concept shows townhomes fronting the streets, consolidated vehicle access and an internal common lot with bike/storage and trash enclosures. The MX‑1 zone requires either mixed uses or two‑story buildings; the applicant proposes 2–3 stories with rooftop pergolas and stair/lift overruns. Parking is proposed as 1–2 car garages per unit plus internal guest and commercial parking; staff said the project meets minimum parking requirements. Semple said the team plans to widen and pave the alley to 20 feet, replace curb/gutter/sidewalks as needed, connect and loop water mains per fire department and Veolia requests, add a hydrant at the alley, bury as many overhead utilities as feasible, and work with ACHD on potential additional stop signs for traffic calming.
Next steps and appeals: Because the commission is the deciding body only for the variance, the rezone and preliminary plat were forwarded as recommendations to City Council; City Council will take the final vote on the rezone and the plat. The commission chair reminded the public that appeals rules apply: decisions may be appealed per city code and notice requirements. The commission’s variance decision is final at this level; the appeal window and procedures were discussed earlier in the hearing.
What remains unresolved: The commercial tenant is not specified; parking demands related to an occupied retail space could change depending on the actual user. The commission’s recommendation included a specific condition limiting living‑space height to 35 feet; rooftop accessory elements and the maximum permitted MX‑1 parapet/equipment heights will require clearer plan language before Council review or subsequent administrative approvals. The rezone and preliminary plat will return to City Council for final action.
The commission voted unanimously to approve the variance (CVA‑25‑34) to allow encroachment into the MX‑1 rear setback. Commissioners then voted, also unanimously, to recommend approval of the rezone (CAR‑25‑17) from R‑2/R‑3 to MX‑1 and the preliminary plat (SUB‑25‑50). Commissioner Seha moved to recommend the rezone and preliminary plat; Commissioner Moore seconded the rezone motion. For the preliminary plat the commission added a recommended condition that “living space” not exceed 35 feet; commissioners approved that recommendation by roll call. The variance vote was moved by Commissioner Doan and seconded by Commissioner Seha. The roll calls recorded the ayes as Stanley, Moore, Seha, Torres and Doan; the motions carried unanimously.
Why it matters: Planning staff said the site sits between two arterial streets, near multiple bus routes, bikeways and three activity centers, and that the comprehensive plan supports infill on vacant parcels to use existing infrastructure. The proposed MX‑1 zoning would allow the mixed‑use subdivision and a maximum structure height up to the MX‑1 limit (45 feet by code), but the applicant offered a design with buildings primarily 2–3 stories and a parapet at about 35 feet. The commission’s recommended condition limits internal living space height to 35 feet; rooftop stair/lift overruns and rooftop amenities were discussed separately in the hearing.
Staff presentation and planning findings: Jesse, representing planning staff, summarized the application as CAR‑25‑17 / CBA‑25‑34 / SUB‑25‑50, a request to rezone roughly 1.96 acres (including rights of way) from R‑2 and R‑3 to MX‑1, submit a preliminary plat for 21 residential, one commercial and two common lots, and grant a variance to reduce the MX‑1 10‑foot rear setback to permit consolidated vehicle access from an internal common lot. Jesse said the MX‑1 designation is supported by the future land use map given the parcel’s proximity to services and transit, that the MX‑1 zone requires either mixed uses or a minimum two‑story form, and that all parking requirements would be met as proposed. Jesse concluded: “The planning team recommends approval.”
Applicant presentation: Ben Semple, representing Rodney Evans and Partners (the applicant), said the team agreed with the staff report and conditions of approval. Semple described the project as 2‑ to 3‑story townhomes with 1–2 car garages, an internal bicycle storage structure and consolidated trash/dumpster service on the common lot. He said the project retains most street trees, adds internal landscaping and proposes a small neighborhood‑scaled commercial “bodega” at the northeast corner. “We are in agreement with all the conditions of approval and the staff report,” Semple said during his presentation.
Variance and access rationale: Both staff and the applicant said the triangular parcel geometry and the desire to consolidate vehicle access onto an internal common lot — rather than require 22 separate alley accesses and maintenance agreements — justified the variance request. Semple said the layout reduces curb cuts and places vehicle access from the alley/internal lot. Staff noted that the variance would change internal rear setback relationships in the MX‑1 layout but would not alter the street‑facing setbacks required by the public right of way.
Public testimony and neighborhood concerns: More than twenty people spoke during the public comment period. Speakers supporting the project said the lot has been vacant for years and that infill housing is appropriate. Scott Tagg, a nearby resident, said he supported the project: “I support this project because I look forward to welcoming these new residents to my neighborhood.”
Most speakers opposed elements of the proposal. Frequent concerns included height, privacy, parking demand, traffic safety on the narrow Jefferson Street corridor, the proposed MX‑1 rezoning (which removes some of the existing R‑2/R‑3 setback protections), and the viability or need for the proposed corner commercial space. Representative public comments included: “The rules are valid. The rules are something we all live by,” said Sarah Colson, a nearby resident questioning the request for exceptions; Trish Webb, who lives at 1912 West Jefferson, told the commission she and her wife had lived in the neighborhood for 30 years and said, “My biggest concern is the heights of the building.” Neighbors also raised construction impacts, stormwater and infrastructure capacity.
Site, design and mitigation details: The project site totals about 1.96 acres. The applicant’s concept shows townhomes fronting the streets, consolidated vehicle access and an internal common lot with bike/storage and trash enclosures. The MX‑1 zone requires either mixed uses or two‑story buildings; the applicant proposes 2–3 stories with rooftop pergolas and stair/lift overruns. Parking is proposed as 1–2 car garages per unit plus internal guest and commercial parking; staff said the project meets minimum parking requirements. Semple said the team plans to widen and pave the alley to 20 feet, replace curb/gutter/sidewalks as needed, connect and loop water mains per fire department and Veolia requests, add a hydrant at the alley, bury as many overhead utilities as feasible, and work with ACHD on potential additional stop signs for traffic calming.
Next steps and appeals: Because the commission is the deciding body only for the variance, the rezone and preliminary plat were forwarded as recommendations to City Council; City Council will take the final vote on the rezone and the plat. The commission chair reminded the public that appeals rules apply: decisions may be appealed per city code and notice requirements. The commission’s variance decision is final at this level; the appeal window and procedures were discussed earlier in the hearing.
What remains unresolved: The commercial tenant is not specified; parking demands related to an occupied retail space could change depending on the actual user. The commission’s recommendation included a specific condition limiting living‑space height to 35 feet; rooftop accessory elements and the maximum permitted MX‑1 parapet/equipment heights will require clearer plan language before Council review or subsequent administrative approvals. The rezone and preliminary plat will return to City Council for final action.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting